![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Seven ways to greet a neighbor was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 12 May 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Arthashastra. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
The article currently focuses strongly on the kingship and statecraft angle. The Arthashastra also has amazing cultural and technical description of the society for which it was written (see [1]). I think the article needs abridging and cleanup of the Rajarishi section (which is about Book I) and expansion of these other aspects.
The Rajarishi text comes from an article by Navendu Shirali - it can be found elsewhere on the Web, but he did write it, so no need for copyvio alerts (especially once it's copyedited). Tearlach 01:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
"He should be just in regarding and punishing."
'Regarding', or 'rewarding'? TheMadBaron 08:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Kautilya says that artha (Sound Economies) is the most important; dharma & karma are both dependent on it.
Presumably kama, not karma - in line with dharma, artha, kama? Tearlach 03:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Artha has many meanings, and this text touches on most of them. Some of the appropriate ones would be "power" and "wealth", so I have to disagree with the translation of the title as "The Science of Material Gain", especially considering that this is a treatise concerned with how a king should rule, not how an individual should pursue material gain. It is different from other texts such as the Kama Sutra in that way. I would personally translate the title as "The Science of Power" or as a compromise "The Science of Power/Wealth". Unlike our corresponding words, Artha implies both of these simultaneously, and that should be reflected in the title.
I'm not sure Handbook of Profit is sufficiently common to go up-front as the implied dominant translation. I found about three Google hits. The Arthashastra entries in the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions don't mention it. I can only find it in the Britannica Online, where two articles use it ("Carvaka" and "Artha-sastra") but seven others use the usual Science of Material Gain and Science of Polity. Tearlach 01:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Is this a cognate or Arta (Asha)? Is Artha Shah-stra a cognate of Artaxerxes (Ardeshir)? Which is roughly translated Arta Kinghip, "he who rules through arta"? I would love to see a scholarly addressment of this concept. 173.173.20.99 ( talk) 19:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
It should be noted that there are not many versions of the Arthashastra in other languages. However, there is a Telugu version of Kautilya’ Arthashastra by an eminent Professor of History and Political Science, from Andhra Pradesh, M. Venkatanrangaiya and Akundi Venkatashastry. The version was first published in 1923. There is no reprint of this, however, a copy of the same is available upon request at vmamdipudi@yahoo.com. The book starts with an introduction highlighting the expertise of Kautilya. The divisions of this version are the same as in Samashastry’s 1915 edition of the book in English.
'what's the problem? explain at talk'
And most especially, this:
In addition, a quick glance at the contributions of what is clearly a single troll--one whose existence you're already aware of, given that you've already warned him:
and quite probably
Included are the following highlights:
This adds nothing to the article, is wildly out-of-tone with the article as a whole, is unverified, and isn't even believed by the person adding it. Other than that, not much.-- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 06:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
This treatise is considered as one of the earliest known work (if not the earliest) that considers economic theory that is a forerunner of modern economics.
See here:
L. K. Jha, K. N. Jha (1998). "Chanakya: the pioneer economist of the world", International Journal of Social Economics 25 (2-4), p. 267-282.
Waldauer, C., Zahka, W.J. and Pal, S. 1996. Kautilya's Arthashastra: A neglected precursor to classical economics. Indian Economic Review, Vol. XXXI, No. 1, pp. 101-108.
Tisdell, C. 2003. A Western perspective of Kautilya's Arthasastra: does it provide a basis for economic science? Economic Theory, Applications and Issues Working Paper No. 18. Brisbane: School of Economics, The University of Queensland.
And The issue 'Modern perspectives on Kautilya's economics' in the journal Humanomics, Vol. 25, issue 1 (2009).
It contains information on the sources and prerequisites for economic growth, and obstructions and incentives for economic growth.
See here:
Sihag, B.S. 2007. Kautilya on institutions, governance, knowledge, ethics and prosperity. Humanomics 23 (1): 5-28.
Therefore please create and write about the Arthashastra's contribution to economics by referring to the above-mentioned economic papers. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Oxford Dictionary (
talk •
contribs)
12:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
If anyone know the language in which the Arthashastra is originally written, they are requested to update that information in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aravind V R ( talk • contribs) 13:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Please change "professor" and "university" into different terms. These are anachronistic and serves to undermine the contents sense of factuality. Also they might mislead uneducated readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.172.232.106 ( talk) 07:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I have seen a modern literature section in here off and on. Keeps getting reverted in the name of trivia. However, the author Brad Thor has an article, the mentioning of Arthashastra is an uncommon topic in modern literature and in the book several true recipes for poisons, bio-warfare and chemical warfare are mentioned. All gleaned from Arthashastra. I do not care to get into a silly edit war and considering the people watching this article for this fact Modern Literature "trivia nonsense" alone, I would also ask for an outside opinion. 98.214.81.82 ( talk) 08:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I tried to find Weber´s quote in various places, but I didn´t. It seems to be another example of apocryphal quotes in wikipeida. I´ll remove it. You can personally check it here.-- Knight1993 ( talk) 00:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Arthashastra. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
@Wujastyk: The source you added is already in the article. I have standardized the format, and updated the links to sources you added. I am puzzled by your proposed changes to the lead. Why delete the Olivelle's source? Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 05:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: I will check one more time if it is primary, or is this part from the review he does. I will leave it your way for now, may be move it to the main article after check, if need be, as it feels undue in the lead. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 21:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ghatus: Read the bottom disclaimer in the opinion piece on IDSA website. The opinion piece is WP:Primary and I can't figure out who wrote that opinion piece (his or her qualifications). So, the burden is on you to prove it WP:RS. The link is also inappropriate because the linked article is a stub full of OR, that I can't verify what you added there. Please don't edit war. Get consensus here. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 15:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3:, thank God you found a book. Now, this journal war will stop as I said before. :-) Ghatus ( talk) 11:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Arthashastra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Nightbat: Welcome to wikipedia. We summarize what reliable sources state, see WP:STICKTOSOURCE and WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a platform for soapboxing and presenting your wisdom/prejudices/opinions, per WP:WWIN. Please do not edit war and explain your edit here, "after reviewing the content policies and guidelines". Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 22:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello Sarah. I've been on Wikipedia nearly a decade longer than you. So, hey, welcome to Wikipedia. Let me also remind you that Wikipedia is not a platform for soapboxing, presenting your wisdom/prejudices/opinions, or cherry-picking data points to suit your conclusions as you are repeatedly doing. Nightbat ( talk) 23:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
References
extended OR discussion
|
---|
|
@ Nightbat: I am presenting both sides, you are taking sides by presenting only "it is Indian", and "I don't care how many scholars you present who call....". Your arguments are OR and FORUM-y. I doubt you have read the sanskrit manuscript of Arthasastra, it is obviously a Hindu text. It mentions Hindu deities (Prajapati, for example), mentions Hindu ideas (vedas /dharma /artha /kama /moksha / samkhya /etc), mentions and cherishes Hindu practices (the king should start the day by revering / circumambulating a cow), etc. Your OR above is unacceptable basis for your edit. You are attacking WP:RS. Why isn't "I will NOT allow you to misrepresent my civilization's heritage" WP:Soap? You have not answered @ Kautilya3's remarks above. "Hindu" as he hints, is more than a religion, it refers to a culture/tradition/ideas/etc. But, set that aside, because at wikipedia we must summarize all sides from WP:RS with NPOV. Would you like to take this dispute to DRN / ANI? Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 10:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
As a compromise I suggest a wording along the lines of "Indian text representing Hindu political philosophy." Calling it simply a "Hindu text" is likely to be misleading because it is not clear in what sense it is "Hindu."
I do not want to go down the level of Nightbat's level of OR debates, but he doesn't seem to know that all religions have evolved a variety of philosophies guiding all aspects of human life. His knowledge of religion is superficial, and not scholarly. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
{{ping|Kautilya3} Ok so you want me to "get off my high horse". Let me do that for a moment and speak with you at your level of intellect. You accuse me of OR. Did you see the FIVE scholarly references I provided? These are not blogs or forums. They include one book, and 4 peer-reviewed, academic papers from international journals. How is that OR? Do you define OR as anything that you don't agree with? Nightbat ( talk) 16:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Ms Sarah Welch: first removed my edit & asked me to "stick to the references". After I provided 5 references, she removed my edit again, without reason. Is this what you call a "policy-based approach"? This is a completely arbitrary approach. Finally, {{ping|Kautilya3}, you threatened me with a ban on my talk page. Don't you threaten me, buddy. I have done nothing wrong. Nightbat ( talk) 16:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Ms Sarah Welch: Same as above. I have presented high-quality, reliable, peer-reviewed scholarly references, not OR. I can present more. If you feel this is wrong, please feel free to take this dispute to DRN / ANI. Nightbat ( talk) 16:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Nightbat: I am glad you are now willing to include "Indian" and "Hindu" adjectives, if that is consistent with the WP:RS. Do you have any WP:RS for "references Hindu philosophy" part you propose? Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 03:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
References
@Kautilya3: Indeed. Since @Nightbat sounds to be also agreeing, we may have a general consensus, I will make a couple of changes. Please reword it further. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 11:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear reader, thanks for taking time to review this suggested edit.
Please change: "The colonial era scholar Max Weber observed in 1919, few years after the newly discovered Arthashastra manuscript's translation was first published:"
To: "The scholar Max Weber observed in 1919, a few years after the newly discovered Arthashastra manuscript's translation was first published:"
Because: 1) Grammar: "a" few years. 2) Qualification of Weber as a "colonial era scholar" is inaccurate and normative.
And please change: Truly radical "Machiavellianism", in the popular sense of that word, is classically expressed in Indian literature in the Arthashastra of Kautilya (written long before the birth of Christ, ostensibly in the time of Chandragupta): compared to it, Machiavelli's The Prince is harmless.[124]"
To: A really radical 'Machiavellianism,' in the popular sense of this word, is classically represented in Indian literature, in the Kautaliya Arthasastra (long before Christ, allegedly dating from Chandragupta's time). In contrast with this document Machiavelli's Principe is harmless.[124]"
Because: Translation of citation is not the same as translation in referenced source ( https://web.archive.org/web/20100131051351/http://www.ne.jp/asahi/moriyuki/abukuma/weber/lecture/politics_vocation.html) Sandervanhaperen ( talk) 17:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
i listened to one scholar stating arthashastra has originally seventeen texts, all except one have been lost, when we observe it, the name seems more about science/shastra of artha/ livelihood/sustenance etc than the book. i think that a separate article should be made on arthashastra and this one labelled as book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.137.72.188 ( talk) 18:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Arthashastra on war, or similar titles, Arthashastra on military affairs, can be new articles. This single paragraph helps explain why there could and should be a separate article on war:
Kautilya offers wide-ranging and truly fascinating discussions on war and diplomacy, including [...] his willingness to make treaties he knew he would break, his doctrine of silent war or a war of assassination against an unsuspecting king, his approval of secret agents who killed enemy leaders and sowed discord among them, his view of women as weapons of war, his use of religion and superstition to bolster his troops and demoralize enemy soldiers, the spread of disinformation, and his humane treatment of conquered soldiers and subjects. (source: The Journal of Military History)
Also, a simple comparative study shows similarities with The Art of War; this comparison can also be taken up, even in this article and with other texts. DTM ( talk) 09:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
If Arthashastra were a written text and was written in BCE the. few questions that need to be answered:
1. Which language it was written originally? 2. How can original work be less popular than its translations? 3. Ever sanskrit been written in any script other than Devnagari? 101.114.64.41 ( talk) 12:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by
Wikipedia Ambassadors through the
India Education Program.
The above message was substituted from {{IEP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
19:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Seven ways to greet a neighbor was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 12 May 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Arthashastra. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
The article currently focuses strongly on the kingship and statecraft angle. The Arthashastra also has amazing cultural and technical description of the society for which it was written (see [1]). I think the article needs abridging and cleanup of the Rajarishi section (which is about Book I) and expansion of these other aspects.
The Rajarishi text comes from an article by Navendu Shirali - it can be found elsewhere on the Web, but he did write it, so no need for copyvio alerts (especially once it's copyedited). Tearlach 01:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
"He should be just in regarding and punishing."
'Regarding', or 'rewarding'? TheMadBaron 08:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Kautilya says that artha (Sound Economies) is the most important; dharma & karma are both dependent on it.
Presumably kama, not karma - in line with dharma, artha, kama? Tearlach 03:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Artha has many meanings, and this text touches on most of them. Some of the appropriate ones would be "power" and "wealth", so I have to disagree with the translation of the title as "The Science of Material Gain", especially considering that this is a treatise concerned with how a king should rule, not how an individual should pursue material gain. It is different from other texts such as the Kama Sutra in that way. I would personally translate the title as "The Science of Power" or as a compromise "The Science of Power/Wealth". Unlike our corresponding words, Artha implies both of these simultaneously, and that should be reflected in the title.
I'm not sure Handbook of Profit is sufficiently common to go up-front as the implied dominant translation. I found about three Google hits. The Arthashastra entries in the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions don't mention it. I can only find it in the Britannica Online, where two articles use it ("Carvaka" and "Artha-sastra") but seven others use the usual Science of Material Gain and Science of Polity. Tearlach 01:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Is this a cognate or Arta (Asha)? Is Artha Shah-stra a cognate of Artaxerxes (Ardeshir)? Which is roughly translated Arta Kinghip, "he who rules through arta"? I would love to see a scholarly addressment of this concept. 173.173.20.99 ( talk) 19:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
It should be noted that there are not many versions of the Arthashastra in other languages. However, there is a Telugu version of Kautilya’ Arthashastra by an eminent Professor of History and Political Science, from Andhra Pradesh, M. Venkatanrangaiya and Akundi Venkatashastry. The version was first published in 1923. There is no reprint of this, however, a copy of the same is available upon request at vmamdipudi@yahoo.com. The book starts with an introduction highlighting the expertise of Kautilya. The divisions of this version are the same as in Samashastry’s 1915 edition of the book in English.
'what's the problem? explain at talk'
And most especially, this:
In addition, a quick glance at the contributions of what is clearly a single troll--one whose existence you're already aware of, given that you've already warned him:
and quite probably
Included are the following highlights:
This adds nothing to the article, is wildly out-of-tone with the article as a whole, is unverified, and isn't even believed by the person adding it. Other than that, not much.-- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 06:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
This treatise is considered as one of the earliest known work (if not the earliest) that considers economic theory that is a forerunner of modern economics.
See here:
L. K. Jha, K. N. Jha (1998). "Chanakya: the pioneer economist of the world", International Journal of Social Economics 25 (2-4), p. 267-282.
Waldauer, C., Zahka, W.J. and Pal, S. 1996. Kautilya's Arthashastra: A neglected precursor to classical economics. Indian Economic Review, Vol. XXXI, No. 1, pp. 101-108.
Tisdell, C. 2003. A Western perspective of Kautilya's Arthasastra: does it provide a basis for economic science? Economic Theory, Applications and Issues Working Paper No. 18. Brisbane: School of Economics, The University of Queensland.
And The issue 'Modern perspectives on Kautilya's economics' in the journal Humanomics, Vol. 25, issue 1 (2009).
It contains information on the sources and prerequisites for economic growth, and obstructions and incentives for economic growth.
See here:
Sihag, B.S. 2007. Kautilya on institutions, governance, knowledge, ethics and prosperity. Humanomics 23 (1): 5-28.
Therefore please create and write about the Arthashastra's contribution to economics by referring to the above-mentioned economic papers. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Oxford Dictionary (
talk •
contribs)
12:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
If anyone know the language in which the Arthashastra is originally written, they are requested to update that information in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aravind V R ( talk • contribs) 13:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Please change "professor" and "university" into different terms. These are anachronistic and serves to undermine the contents sense of factuality. Also they might mislead uneducated readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.172.232.106 ( talk) 07:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I have seen a modern literature section in here off and on. Keeps getting reverted in the name of trivia. However, the author Brad Thor has an article, the mentioning of Arthashastra is an uncommon topic in modern literature and in the book several true recipes for poisons, bio-warfare and chemical warfare are mentioned. All gleaned from Arthashastra. I do not care to get into a silly edit war and considering the people watching this article for this fact Modern Literature "trivia nonsense" alone, I would also ask for an outside opinion. 98.214.81.82 ( talk) 08:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I tried to find Weber´s quote in various places, but I didn´t. It seems to be another example of apocryphal quotes in wikipeida. I´ll remove it. You can personally check it here.-- Knight1993 ( talk) 00:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Arthashastra. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
@Wujastyk: The source you added is already in the article. I have standardized the format, and updated the links to sources you added. I am puzzled by your proposed changes to the lead. Why delete the Olivelle's source? Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 05:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: I will check one more time if it is primary, or is this part from the review he does. I will leave it your way for now, may be move it to the main article after check, if need be, as it feels undue in the lead. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 21:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ghatus: Read the bottom disclaimer in the opinion piece on IDSA website. The opinion piece is WP:Primary and I can't figure out who wrote that opinion piece (his or her qualifications). So, the burden is on you to prove it WP:RS. The link is also inappropriate because the linked article is a stub full of OR, that I can't verify what you added there. Please don't edit war. Get consensus here. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 15:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3:, thank God you found a book. Now, this journal war will stop as I said before. :-) Ghatus ( talk) 11:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Arthashastra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Nightbat: Welcome to wikipedia. We summarize what reliable sources state, see WP:STICKTOSOURCE and WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a platform for soapboxing and presenting your wisdom/prejudices/opinions, per WP:WWIN. Please do not edit war and explain your edit here, "after reviewing the content policies and guidelines". Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 22:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello Sarah. I've been on Wikipedia nearly a decade longer than you. So, hey, welcome to Wikipedia. Let me also remind you that Wikipedia is not a platform for soapboxing, presenting your wisdom/prejudices/opinions, or cherry-picking data points to suit your conclusions as you are repeatedly doing. Nightbat ( talk) 23:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
References
extended OR discussion
|
---|
|
@ Nightbat: I am presenting both sides, you are taking sides by presenting only "it is Indian", and "I don't care how many scholars you present who call....". Your arguments are OR and FORUM-y. I doubt you have read the sanskrit manuscript of Arthasastra, it is obviously a Hindu text. It mentions Hindu deities (Prajapati, for example), mentions Hindu ideas (vedas /dharma /artha /kama /moksha / samkhya /etc), mentions and cherishes Hindu practices (the king should start the day by revering / circumambulating a cow), etc. Your OR above is unacceptable basis for your edit. You are attacking WP:RS. Why isn't "I will NOT allow you to misrepresent my civilization's heritage" WP:Soap? You have not answered @ Kautilya3's remarks above. "Hindu" as he hints, is more than a religion, it refers to a culture/tradition/ideas/etc. But, set that aside, because at wikipedia we must summarize all sides from WP:RS with NPOV. Would you like to take this dispute to DRN / ANI? Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 10:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
As a compromise I suggest a wording along the lines of "Indian text representing Hindu political philosophy." Calling it simply a "Hindu text" is likely to be misleading because it is not clear in what sense it is "Hindu."
I do not want to go down the level of Nightbat's level of OR debates, but he doesn't seem to know that all religions have evolved a variety of philosophies guiding all aspects of human life. His knowledge of religion is superficial, and not scholarly. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
{{ping|Kautilya3} Ok so you want me to "get off my high horse". Let me do that for a moment and speak with you at your level of intellect. You accuse me of OR. Did you see the FIVE scholarly references I provided? These are not blogs or forums. They include one book, and 4 peer-reviewed, academic papers from international journals. How is that OR? Do you define OR as anything that you don't agree with? Nightbat ( talk) 16:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Ms Sarah Welch: first removed my edit & asked me to "stick to the references". After I provided 5 references, she removed my edit again, without reason. Is this what you call a "policy-based approach"? This is a completely arbitrary approach. Finally, {{ping|Kautilya3}, you threatened me with a ban on my talk page. Don't you threaten me, buddy. I have done nothing wrong. Nightbat ( talk) 16:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Ms Sarah Welch: Same as above. I have presented high-quality, reliable, peer-reviewed scholarly references, not OR. I can present more. If you feel this is wrong, please feel free to take this dispute to DRN / ANI. Nightbat ( talk) 16:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Nightbat: I am glad you are now willing to include "Indian" and "Hindu" adjectives, if that is consistent with the WP:RS. Do you have any WP:RS for "references Hindu philosophy" part you propose? Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 03:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
References
@Kautilya3: Indeed. Since @Nightbat sounds to be also agreeing, we may have a general consensus, I will make a couple of changes. Please reword it further. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 11:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear reader, thanks for taking time to review this suggested edit.
Please change: "The colonial era scholar Max Weber observed in 1919, few years after the newly discovered Arthashastra manuscript's translation was first published:"
To: "The scholar Max Weber observed in 1919, a few years after the newly discovered Arthashastra manuscript's translation was first published:"
Because: 1) Grammar: "a" few years. 2) Qualification of Weber as a "colonial era scholar" is inaccurate and normative.
And please change: Truly radical "Machiavellianism", in the popular sense of that word, is classically expressed in Indian literature in the Arthashastra of Kautilya (written long before the birth of Christ, ostensibly in the time of Chandragupta): compared to it, Machiavelli's The Prince is harmless.[124]"
To: A really radical 'Machiavellianism,' in the popular sense of this word, is classically represented in Indian literature, in the Kautaliya Arthasastra (long before Christ, allegedly dating from Chandragupta's time). In contrast with this document Machiavelli's Principe is harmless.[124]"
Because: Translation of citation is not the same as translation in referenced source ( https://web.archive.org/web/20100131051351/http://www.ne.jp/asahi/moriyuki/abukuma/weber/lecture/politics_vocation.html) Sandervanhaperen ( talk) 17:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
i listened to one scholar stating arthashastra has originally seventeen texts, all except one have been lost, when we observe it, the name seems more about science/shastra of artha/ livelihood/sustenance etc than the book. i think that a separate article should be made on arthashastra and this one labelled as book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.137.72.188 ( talk) 18:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Arthashastra on war, or similar titles, Arthashastra on military affairs, can be new articles. This single paragraph helps explain why there could and should be a separate article on war:
Kautilya offers wide-ranging and truly fascinating discussions on war and diplomacy, including [...] his willingness to make treaties he knew he would break, his doctrine of silent war or a war of assassination against an unsuspecting king, his approval of secret agents who killed enemy leaders and sowed discord among them, his view of women as weapons of war, his use of religion and superstition to bolster his troops and demoralize enemy soldiers, the spread of disinformation, and his humane treatment of conquered soldiers and subjects. (source: The Journal of Military History)
Also, a simple comparative study shows similarities with The Art of War; this comparison can also be taken up, even in this article and with other texts. DTM ( talk) 09:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
If Arthashastra were a written text and was written in BCE the. few questions that need to be answered:
1. Which language it was written originally? 2. How can original work be less popular than its translations? 3. Ever sanskrit been written in any script other than Devnagari? 101.114.64.41 ( talk) 12:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by
Wikipedia Ambassadors through the
India Education Program.
The above message was substituted from {{IEP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
19:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)